Count me in as another who disliked the event organizer from the get-go. None of my elderly grandfathers would have been caught dead referring to women as "Skirts". And insisting that it will be the women who prepare for the event, and then be banished from their own homes? Aww E-Hell no!

The bolded is the reason why I think the letter writer is openly biased about the organizer. The organizer can't insist the wives prepare anything. Their husband's might ask them to or the husband's might be assuming the wives will do it. But the organizer has no standing in the home.

The use of the word skirts I found funny. Sort of like saying "No Chicks Allowed" or for a women's party "No Dude's allowed". I don't find the world anymore chauvinistic than I would hearing someone use an old fashioned term like Dames. Neither are PC in today's world but lot's of humor isn't PC.

I'd like its unlikely all these husbands and wives meekly complied with an order that "the wives will clean and make us snacks and then get out."

The group organizer has the right to say "men only " , "each person hosts in their homes " ect and the member have the right to say "no way." or to leave the group.

"no skirts" sounds like something a 50s movie character would say , I could be wrong but does anyone know anyone who has said "skirts" referring to woman seriously ? I've seen people jokily talk like someone out of a 40s detective movie... "See , Dames , Gams " ect.

Count me in as another who disliked the event organizer from the get-go. None of my elderly grandfathers would have been caught dead referring to women as "Skirts". And insisting that it will be the women who prepare for the event, and then be banished from their own homes? Aww E-Hell no!

The bolded is the reason why I think the letter writer is openly biased about the organizer. The organizer can't insist the wives prepare anything. Their husband's might ask them to or the husband's might be assuming the wives will do it. But the organizer has no standing in the home.

The use of the word skirts I found funny. Sort of like saying "No Chicks Allowed" or for a women's party "No Dude's allowed". I don't find the world anymore chauvinistic than I would hearing someone use an old fashioned term like Dames. Neither are PC in today's world but lot's of humor isn't PC.

I'd like its unlikely all these husbands and wives meekly complied with an order that "the wives will clean and make us snacks and then get out."

The group organizer has the right to say "men only " , "each person hosts in their homes " ect and the member have the right to say "no way." or to leave the group.

"no skirts" sounds like something a 50s movie character would say , I could be wrong but does anyone know anyone who has said "skirts" referring to woman seriously ? I've seen people jokily talk like someone out of a 40s detective movie... "See , Dames , Gams " ect.

I don't necessarily think that he said, "Rule One - no skirts! Rule Two - wives must clean before we arrive. There will be a white glove inspection and if we find out that the husband did the cleaning, he's out of the club!" I imagine it's more of a gentleman of a certain age/generation making assumptions about the distribution of labour, e.g. "Now fellas, there's no women allowed, so once they've finished the cleaning they can trot off to their knitting circle or whatever."

In other words, he's decreed that the host must clean and provide snacks, and has assumed that the women will naturally do it.

If you look at how the original letter is worded, it's also likely that the *letter writer*, being a "woman of a certain age," is assuming that "therefore" (her very word) the wives are the ones doing the cleaning/cooking.

Quote

He made a rule that women are not allowed in their own homes when their husbands host a meeting -- "no skirts allowed." Therefore, even though the wife prepares everything for her husband's meeting, she's told to slip out of the house before anyone arrives.

"His" rule is only that women are not allowed in their own homes. She is the one who is making the conclusion that the wife has prepared everything.

If you look at how the original letter is worded, it's also likely that the *letter writer*, being a "woman of a certain age," is assuming that "therefore" (her very word) the wives are the ones doing the cleaning/cooking.

Quote

He made a rule that women are not allowed in their own homes when their husbands host a meeting -- "no skirts allowed." Therefore, even though the wife prepares everything for her husband's meeting, she's told to slip out of the house before anyone arrives.

"His" rule is only that women are not allowed in their own homes. She is the one who is making the conclusion that the wife has prepared everything.

I'd have to agree with this. The letter writer seems to be making assumptions.

Count me in as another who disliked the event organizer from the get-go. None of my elderly grandfathers would have been caught dead referring to women as "Skirts". And insisting that it will be the women who prepare for the event, and then be banished from their own homes? Aww E-Hell no!

The bolded is the reason why I think the letter writer is openly biased about the organizer. The organizer can't insist the wives prepare anything. Their husband's might ask them to or the husband's might be assuming the wives will do it. But the organizer has no standing in the home.

The use of the word skirts I found funny. Sort of like saying "No Chicks Allowed" or for a women's party "No Dude's allowed". I don't find the world anymore chauvinistic than I would hearing someone use an old fashioned term like Dames. Neither are PC in today's world but lot's of humor isn't PC.

I'd like its unlikely all these husbands and wives meekly complied with an order that "the wives will clean and make us snacks and then get out."

The group organizer has the right to say "men only " , "each person hosts in their homes " ect and the member have the right to say "no way." or to leave the group.

"no skirts" sounds like something a 50s movie character would say , I could be wrong but does anyone know anyone who has said "skirts" referring to woman seriously ? I've seen people jokily talk like someone out of a 40s detective movie... "See , Dames , Gams " ect.

I don't necessarily think that he said, "Rule One - no skirts! Rule Two - wives must clean before we arrive. There will be a white glove inspection and if we find out that the husband did the cleaning, he's out of the club!" I imagine it's more of a gentleman of a certain age/generation making assumptions about the distribution of labour, e.g. "Now fellas, there's no women allowed, so once they've finished the cleaning they can trot off to their knitting circle or whatever."

In other words, he's decreed that the host must clean and provide snacks, and has assumed that the women will naturally do it.

It may not be an incorrect assumption but let's remember this is a 55+ community not a nursing home or even assisted living ...55 =20 in 1980 , 65 =20 in 1970 ie the kids in "that 70s show" not the parents.

I brought up the use of the words skirts because the LW used it as a quote. In all honest if someone seriously refereed to me as a skirt and my husband wanted to go to their meeting I'd be furious. I would take it like "he mans woman haters club" or "ball and chain"

I'm honestly asking if "Skirts" was ever used seriously I've hear people say "broads" seriously. IF skirts was ever used seriously I would expect the user to be about 120+. The word choice effects how I feel about the LW...did she misquote to make it sound more chauvinistic or did she become offended over an obviously tough in cheek term.

As a side it sounds like she and her spouse are disagreeing about the group a bit....he WANTS to quit but hasn't

I don't have a problem with a men only club just like I don't have a problem with a women only club. I think the secret stuff depends on what it is. If a friend tells me something private and ask me not to tell DH I either have to agree or tell her I cannot agree and in the future she won't tell me anything anymore. It is possible the "secrets" are boring things that are just made to sound exciting by saying they are secrets. I think sharing ever secret with your spouse could cross over to gossip.

I think demanding anyone not involved in the group to do anything is rude, regardless of gender. I think asking a spouse to leave his/her own home is rude regardless of gender. I think if the spouse wants to leave as he/she is not interested in being home when the group is there fine, I think the spouse being asked to leave the group to itself is fine as well as long as it works for the couple. For example, if I hosted a baby shower my DH would so not want to be in the living room. However, if he was the type of guy who would join in I would ask him not too as if it were all women, one husband changes the dynamics. However, I wouldn't expect him to leave the house, he could just hand out in a different area and I wouldn't expect him to never cross paths with the group rather just try to not interrupt the group.

So like most others, I think it is a relationship issue not a group issue as unless this older man is the other's employer he really cannot force them to do anything.

ETA: I didn't really think of the ages but you are right. My Mom is 65 and if my Dad had ever assumed she would clean, make snacks and leave her home she would just have laughed and told him to order pizza she'll be in the other room.

While I'm convinced that the letter writer doesn't like the organizer, I'm not convinced she's an unbiased source. If she or any other wife for that matter doesn't want to prepare for the evening, then she shouldn't. How exactly would the club founder dictate who prepares for the evening? "Skirts", does anyone really say that?

I can completely see why meeting at a coffee shop and meeting at someone's home wouldn't be the same thing. My first thoughts were more time to talk, not have to sit at a table, no pressure to order something. Shady investments and scrabble weren't top of my list.

It seems like the choices are either he leave the group or he doesn't. If he stays, he can suggest changing the rules, but others may not agree. He could also start another group.

If he stays, they can decide not to host at their house or play by the rules.

The best option would be for her to talk to her husband about his level of involvement and what her role is.

If you look at how the original letter is worded, it's also likely that the *letter writer*, being a "woman of a certain age," is assuming that "therefore" (her very word) the wives are the ones doing the cleaning/cooking.

Quote

He made a rule that women are not allowed in their own homes when their husbands host a meeting -- "no skirts allowed." Therefore, even though the wife prepares everything for her husband's meeting, she's told to slip out of the house before anyone arrives.

"His" rule is only that women are not allowed in their own homes. She is the one who is making the conclusion that the wife has prepared everything.

Count me in as another who disliked the event organizer from the get-go. None of my elderly grandfathers would have been caught dead referring to women as "Skirts". And insisting that it will be the women who prepare for the event, and then be banished from their own homes? Aww E-Hell no!

The bolded is the reason why I think the letter writer is openly biased about the organizer. The organizer can't insist the wives prepare anything. Their husband's might ask them to or the husband's might be assuming the wives will do it. But the organizer has no standing in the home.

The use of the word skirts I found funny. Sort of like saying "No Chicks Allowed" or for a women's party "No Dude's allowed". I don't find the world anymore chauvinistic than I would hearing someone use an old fashioned term like Dames. Neither are PC in today's world but lot's of humor isn't PC.

I'd like its unlikely all these husbands and wives meekly complied with an order that "the wives will clean and make us snacks and then get out."

The group organizer has the right to say "men only " , "each person hosts in their homes " ect and the member have the right to say "no way." or to leave the group.

"no skirts" sounds like something a 50s movie character would say , I could be wrong but does anyone know anyone who has said "skirts" referring to woman seriously ? I've seen people jokily talk like someone out of a 40s detective movie... "See , Dames , Gams " ect.

I don't necessarily think that he said, "Rule One - no skirts! Rule Two - wives must clean before we arrive. There will be a white glove inspection and if we find out that the husband did the cleaning, he's out of the club!" I imagine it's more of a gentleman of a certain age/generation making assumptions about the distribution of labour, e.g. "Now fellas, there's no women allowed, so once they've finished the cleaning they can trot off to their knitting circle or whatever."

In other words, he's decreed that the host must clean and provide snacks, and has assumed that the women will naturally do it.

It may not be an incorrect assumption but let's remember this is a 55+ community not a nursing home or even assisted living ...55 =20 in 1980 , 65 =20 in 1970 ie the kids in "that 70s show" not the parents.

I brought up the use of the words skirts because the LW used it as a quote. In all honest if someone seriously refereed to me as a skirt and my husband wanted to go to their meeting I'd be furious. I would take it like "he mans woman haters club" or "ball and chain"

I'm honestly asking if "Skirts" was ever used seriously I've hear people say "broads" seriously. IF skirts was ever used seriously I would expect the user to be about 120+. The word choice effects how I feel about the LW...did she misquote to make it sound more chauvinistic or did she become offended over an obviously tough in cheek term.

As a side it sounds like she and her spouse are disagreeing about the group a bit....he WANTS to quit but hasn't

Both very good points. Still, it's unreasonable for the organiser to tell the wives to leave the house.

I don't have any problems with him wanting to have a men's only get together and if it were my husband and his friends, I just would clean the house and make sure there were snacks for them. That's just what I'd do because I would want to - I like my husband and his friends

I'd not like to be told to leave my house, although I possibly would anyway, depending on the timing of their get togethers. Like, if the shopping centres were open, I'd likely take the opportunity to go and wander around, do a bit of shopping - which is something that my husband doesn't normally accompany me to anyway because he doesn't enjoy just 'wandering around' type shopping. If I didn't feel like going out or the timing wasn't suitable or something though, I'd probably just hang around in a different part of the house, watch a movie in the bedroom with the door closed or something and I'd expect that would be acceptable!

Having said all that, is it just me or is 'regular breakfasts' AND ' twice a month evening get togethers' excessive? I mean, how many people are in this group? How many times would these twice monthly evenings be in my home? Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge my husband spending however much time with his friends that he wants to, so I don't have a problem that way, but twice a month (essentially every second week) PLUS regular breakfasts seems a bit OTT.

And the whole 'secret secrets' stuff wouldn't worry me either. They can talk about whatever they want and I feel that my husband is entitled to his privacy and entitled to not tell me every single detail of his life and his conversations if he so desires. The only time it would become a problem for me is if there was something that he kept from me which was directly related to me or something that would affect me, us or our relationship in some way.

Both very good points. Still, it's unreasonable for the organiser to tell the wives to leave the house.[/quote]

I trimmed the quotes a bit so I could just respond to this.

The organizer isn't telling wifes they need to leave their homes , their husbands are. IT may seem like I'm splitting hairs but thats really what it is...... there is a "club rule" the husbands are choosing to join a club that requires they host with their wives not at home when its their turn to host. The person who made the rule isn't rude the people choosing to enforce it may be.

I don't actually agree that its universally rude to host an event in your home that requires your spouse not to be present but even if I did I would say it's the husbands being rude not the rule-maker.

ITs a voluntary club , they are choosing to be members they are free to chose not to.

Both very good points. Still, it's unreasonable for the organiser to tell the wives to leave the house.

I trimmed the quotes a bit so I could just respond to this.

The organizer isn't telling wifes they need to leave their homes , their husbands are. IT may seem like I'm splitting hairs but thats really what it is...... there is a "club rule" the husbands are choosing to join a club that requires they host with their wives not at home when its their turn to host. The person who made the rule isn't rude the people choosing to enforce it may be.

I don't actually agree that its universally rude to host an event in your home that requires your spouse not to be present but even if I did I would say it's the husbands being rude not the rule-maker.

ITs a voluntary club , they are choosing to be members they are free to chose not to.

Okay then, it's unreasonable to make a club rule regarding what other members of the household can do (or not do) in their own homes. That's not something that an outsider gets to decide. Yes the men joined up knowing that, but I think it's a rude rule to make in the first place.

If you look at how the original letter is worded, it's also likely that the *letter writer*, being a "woman of a certain age," is assuming that "therefore" (her very word) the wives are the ones doing the cleaning/cooking.

Quote

He made a rule that women are not allowed in their own homes when their husbands host a meeting -- "no skirts allowed." Therefore, even though the wife prepares everything for her husband's meeting, she's told to slip out of the house before anyone arrives.

"His" rule is only that women are not allowed in their own homes. She is the one who is making the conclusion that the wife has prepared everything.

If that's the organiser's rule. I'd say he's definitely rude. He cannot presume to tell a non-member of his "club" what she can and can't do. The wives would be perfectly fine in ignoring it.

If it's the husbands' rule (or if they are attempting to enforce the organiser's rule) that's a relationship issue for each couple to sort out between themselves. And I actually think the husbands here would be somewhat rude, in signing up to a club with such a rule, without clearing it with their wives first.

Picturing the 55+ (but in reality much older on the average, as I'm guessing this gang is) condo Florida community where my mother-in-law lives, I can see how getting out of the house entirely would be the way to go. The floor plans are so open, the only thing she could do would be to go in the bedroom, and she wouldn't be able to get to the kitchen or garage without walking right through the card game or whatever. Plus if the guys like to be loud and swear or have bull session conversations, they would feel inhibited by a lady on the other side of the thin wall. If I lived in her condo, I'd WANT to leave in this situation instead of staying in the bedroom all night. So depending on the "geography" issues in the units in this community, and especially if there are enough members that they only infrequently meet at each person's house, I can see "empty house" being a reasonable rule, albeit one that might make some people decline to join, and I do agree that the spouse should agree before joining.

Even if it isn't just the LW, which I think it well may be, maybe some of these wives choose to clean up because they don't trust their husbands to do a good job and don't want the guys to see a dirty or messy house. And as for cooking, maybe they think it's easier to fix snacks than to have an inexperienced husband make a mess, or maybe they hate to give up control of their kitchens. I wouldn't clean up (actually my husband has done that for me), but I might fix snacks if I like the people or have something I'm trying to clear out of the house.

All in all, I agree that she is trying to blame the organizer when what it sounds like is really bothering her is that her husband spends so much time with this club at all. She's not unreasonable not to like that, but she should, in my opinion, just be honest about what is really bothering her instead of trying to make it seem like a sexist issue.